Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1764 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1764 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority leader or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. The rule waives all points of order against any consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read.

Madam Speaker, the time has come to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have all heard the arguments, the studies have been done, the hearings have been held. The men and women of the armed services have spoken and their leaders have weighed in. There are no more excuses not to repeal this misguided and harmful policy. There is no more reason to delay this any longer.

Madam Speaker, for gay military personnel, how much longer do we ask them to serve in silence? How many more hearings and how much more testimony are we going to ask for before we finally hear what the men and women of the armed services have just said: Just because someone is gay doesn't make them any less of a soldier, an airman, or a marine. How many more times can we just turn our

heads and pretend we don't see the damage this policy has done to our military's readiness? And how many more competent, talented, and patriotic men and women will be kicked out of the service before this misguided and harmful policy is forever banned?

The results of the comprehensive study of the attitudes of military personnel are clear and unequivocal. It is right here.

When they were asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a coworker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92 percent of the military personnel stated that the unit's ability to work together was ``very good,'' ``good,'' or ``neither good nor poor.''

When they were asked about having a servicemember in their immediate unit who said he or she was gay and how that would affect the unit's ability to work together to get the job done, 70 percent of servicemembers predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or absolutely no effect.

And it is not just the men and women who make up our Armed Forces who are urging Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; our Nation's military leaders also believe it needs to come to an end.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ``I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our Nation, and for our collective honor.''

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, agreed. He said repeal would not keep us from ``accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations.''

And Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, said it simply: Repeal ``will not fundamentally change who we are and what we do.''

Madam Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that women were not allowed to serve in combat. When we debated ending that ban, the critics predicted that if women were allowed in combat, that discipline would dissolve and unit cohesion would crumble.

The arguments against allowing women to serve in combat were exactly the same thing they are saying today about allowing openly gay men and women to serve. But after two wars where women have served ably and bravely alongside their male counterparts, none of the grim predictions came true. Discipline has not suffered and our military remains the most powerful and effective in the world.

But those two wars have taken their toll on recruitment and retention. Our military is stretched thin, and the last thing we should be doing is kicking out skilled men and women who volunteered to fight for our country. The last thing we should be doing is telling troops that we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train that we don't need your services anymore. And the last thing we should be doing is saying that no matter how brave you are, no matter how dedicated you are, no matter how patriotic you are, if you are gay, we don't want you to wear the uniform of the United States.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell threatens our national security. It wastes precious resources, and it goes against the values that our military embodies: integrity, honesty, and loyalty.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle for his thoughts on this. He is getting ready to retire from Congress. I just want to say I've enjoyed the opportunity to serve with you on the Rules Committee and appreciate the thoughts that you bring to the issues that we have to deal with.

With all due respect, I want to disagree with you on one particular point, as I did earlier today in the Rules Committee, and without questioning anything that you had to say today, I will just say that my experience on the issue of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, whether it is in my position as sitting on the Armed Services Committee or with some of my colleagues on the Rules Committee who have questioned this particular bill as the vehicle, it is that sometimes I feel like people run out of substantive arguments and they go back to process and they say, well, there's something flawed about this process.

And over the 2 years that I've been here, as we've been discussing a piece of law that no longer works, that shouldn't be in law, that tells people who are gay or lesbian that they can no longer serve in the military, for the past 2 years I've heard over and over again, well, this is a flawed process. So as a member of the Armed Services Committee, even though my good colleague Representative Davis held subcommittee hearings on this issue and there has been much discussion of it, people said, well, we need to have a study.

So we got a study. It's a big, thick study. It's a wonderfully well done study. And when I had the opportunity just recently to sit in the Armed Services Committee and listen to the briefing by the military on the work they had done in this study, I have to say, I was very impressed. Something like 150,000 people participated in this study.

Now, as my colleagues know, when you're a Member of Congress or a challenger running, you're lucky to have a poll of 400 people to get their opinion. Maybe sometimes the poll has 1,200 people, and we take that as public opinion. But to ask 150,000 people associated with the military ``So, what do you think?'' is quite a piece of work, and I think it was extremely well done.

And what we were told that day in that briefing was, overwhelmingly, our military said, you know, this is just fine. Many of them said: I already know. I serve alongside someone who is a gay or lesbian member of the Armed Forces, and it doesn't bother us at all. It isn't interfering with unit cohesion or ability to fight. People said overwhelmingly: What is taking so long to change this particular provision in law?

So I look at this and I say, whether it's the vehicle that we have before us today--today, in some of the final days of this particular Congress; today, when I think we have to act with urgency here in this House, after this House has already passed this provision in the Armed Services, in the general authorization bill. We've already passed this once. We've already shown that we're in favor of this here. Now, it's back again as a standalone to make it easier for people to deal with this as an individual issue--to go back and say, well, it's all about the process, we haven't had enough process, I think shows great disrespect to those members of our Armed Forces and their leaders who have said to us: Change this, move on, get it done so those 13,000-plus soldiers who have already been told they can no longer serve in the military and we've lost the ability to use their expertise and their training and their patriotism in this country, to say that there isn't urgency today and that we should somehow allow a process argument to slow us down doesn't make any sense.

I very proudly come from the State of Maine, and something like 17 percent of our 1.3 million residents in Maine are either active duty personnel or veterans who have served this country. I go home and hear the people in my district, whether I'm talking to a veterans' group or someone who's just on their way to serve in Afghanistan or coming back or, sadly, sometimes at a military funeral, and people do not say to me, Prohibit gay and lesbian people from serving in the military. People say to me in my home district, in a State that is very dedicated to serving the military, they say, When are you going to end this process of discrimination?

And that is why we are here today. We are here to move forward on the

rule, to make sure that once and for all this House of Representatives, again, says let's repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Let's remember that this is a threat to our national security, that it's disrespectful of all of our soldiers, that there will be no serious ramifications of this, and, in fact, our military is very well prepared and has good plans to move forward on this transition.

Let's remember that this is the patriotic vote to cast. This is the vote for national security. This is the vote for respecting the investment we have made in these soldiers. This is a vote for increasing recruitment in our military and saying to even more members who currently are unsure, saying to more people who are unsure about whether or not they should join the military because they worry that they would possibly be out of it, it's a measure to say we welcome you.

Our Armed Services will be only stronger when we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

It is never too late to do the right thing. And that is the proposition that is before this House, the proposition that we are going to, as Barry Goldwater said, worry about whether people can shoot straight, not whether they are straight.

What he meant by that is: Are they competent? Are they committed? Are they patriotic? Are they willing to fight? Have they trained well? Are they prepared to defend our country? That is the litmus test.

Now, that wasn't always the litmus test. There were some times when that group over there could fight over there and the other group over here could fight over here because, after all, if we mixed those groups, it would be damaging to the national security. That proposition was wrong then and it is wrong now.

We passed, some time ago, a defense bill. We passed a defense bill through this House. We adopted an amendment to that bill. That bill is still in the Senate. It is still in the Senate, very frankly, because the minority party has not allowed it to move. It has the votes to move; it simply doesn't have almost two-thirds to move.

This May, the House approved the repeal of our Armed Forces' policy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell adopted some 17 years ago by a vote of 234- 194. We voted to end the outdated policy that, frankly, undermines our national security, pending a comprehensive Defense Department report that would review the issues associated with implementing

repeal and study our troops' attitudes towards open service. That study was undertaken. That study has been reported. That study showed that some 70 percent of the members surveyed said, No problem. Not an issue. Again, I am worried about somebody who can shoot straight, who has the courage and willingness and the commitment to defend our country. That, from their perspective, is the criteria.

That report was released on November 30, as I said, and included an exhaustive survey of the views of more than 115,000 people.

When we take a poll, you are talking about 500, maybe 1,000, if it is a big poll, and you rely on that and you make some pretty important decisions based upon those polls. You spend money based upon those polls. You decide to run based upon those polls. You decide to emphasize issue A or issue B based upon those polls. And, frankly, in some respects, your career depends upon that. So you rely on those surveys.

This survey, 70 percent came to an unambiguous conclusion, quote, ``The risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.''

Now, I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle who have debated this issue say, Oh, no, that is not right; and, very frankly, I have heard generals quoted. But this is, after all, who the generals are concerned about, the people in the field, the men and women who are actually in the battle. And they come back and say, No problem.

Our troops stand with our military leaders and the vast majority of Americans in calling for repeal. The majority of them would be baffled by the fear with which some of my colleagues tar them every time Don't Ask, Don't Tell is discussed.

Some say that our troops are unwilling or apprehensive about serving with gays in the military; yet 92 percent of them who have done so have called that experience very good, good, or neutral.

Now, let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, you are serving with gays in this body. You are interfacing with gays every day in the staffs on both sides of this Capitol. You may know or you may not know, but disabuse yourself of the theory that somehow you are bothered by that, because you are not. They serve here with distinction, they serve here with dedication, and they serve here at no risk to any one of us or their colleagues either as employees, as Members, or as visitors to this Capitol. There are surely countless stories that prove that point.

``We have gay men and women,'' one fighter said, ``in my unit. He is big, he is mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared he was gay.'' Why? Because what they focused on was whether or not he did the job, whether he was patriotic, committed, and effective. That is the test. That ought to be the test for every American: the test of character, the test of performance, the test of compliance with the rules and regulations and the laws. That ought to be our test. That certainly is what we expect, I think, of others in judging us.

Despite all of this, the Senate has failed to pass the defense authorization bill. As I said, we passed one last June, I think.

Above all, we must pass this bill because our choice is between a thoughtful, responsible repeal plan developed over months of study or a sudden disruptive review imposed by the courts. Our military leaders understand that the courts are likely to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and that is exactly why they are urging Congress to pass a legislative solution instead.

I tell my friends, I talked to Secretary Gates earlier this week, and he said, Pass this bill. And he said, Pass this bill because we need a legislative, not a court-imposed, solution.

Admiral Mike Mullen, who supports repeal, wants it to come, and I quote, ``through the same process with which the law was enacted rather than precipitously through the courts.''

So I tell my friends that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, who, by the way, as we all know, is not of my party, but he is not a partisan. He is a promoter of the military security and welfare of the troops. And I refer to Bob Gates, for whom I think we all have a great deal of respect and confidence.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I will tell you what I think about that.

Their concern seems to be for the morale of the troops, of the performance of the troops, which is exactly why we said, and I tell my friend, in May, Let's ask the troops. And that is why we surveyed 115,000 of the troops and said, Is this a problem? And they responded, overwhelmingly, it is not a problem.

There are some who apparently do not accept that. I understand the gentleman. I am not necessarily surprised by that. My friend and my colleague, I don't know exactly your age. You are much younger than I am. This is not a new phenomenon, I tell my young friend.

When we have made changes in the service sector in the past, there had been voices who said this would undermine morale and performance. I suggest to my friend, it did not. And I tell my friend, for those who believe it will, I believe this survey indicates the contrary, and I believe the contrary, based upon experience, based upon observation, and based upon history.

It is a hard choice, it seems to me, to reject--to reject--a considered, thoughtful, planned approach to implementing a policy that Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen believes is going to happen. And I will tell my friends in this body, my conversations with Members of the Senate indicate that there are sufficient numbers in the Senate to pass this policy.

More than that, Mr. Speaker, it is time to end a policy of official discrimination that has cost America the service of some 13,500 men and women who wore our uniform with honor. They were not discharged because they did not perform their duties or because they were not honorable in their service; they were discharged simply because they were gay.

One of those young men who deserves better is a constituent named Ian Goldin. Actually, he was not dismissed, but I will tell you his story. He wrote to me a compelling letter, and I want to close with his words:

``Congressman Hoyer, I joined the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps last year after President Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I have always known that I wanted to serve my country in the Armed Forces, but one thing was always holding me back: I'm gay.

``I've been open about that part of my life since high school, and I was not willing to go back into the closet. But after the President promised to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I decided to finally join ROTC, hopeful that I would not have to hide my sexuality for long. I quickly realized that I had made the right choice. Although I was a new recruit, I was already in the top of my class of cadet privates first class in land navigation.

``But it became increasingly difficult to hide such an important part of who I am.'' Because, of course, the policy that we have in place asks people to lie. Honor, duty, country. Lying is not a component part of that philosophy. But that is what we expect people, if they want to serve their country in the Armed Forces of the United States, to do.

``After learning about the continual delays in Congress, I decided I needed to quit ROTC until the ban was repealed.

``I have spent this past semester studying abroad, and I will spend next semester in Cairo. I have invaluable experience abroad. I'm an advanced Arabic speaker. I'm an ``A'' student at a top national university.

``Most importantly,'' he says, ``I want to serve my country. When I can serve openly, I will finish ROTC and be commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army. And there are many others like me--I've met them.''

He concluded, ``So please, do whatever you can to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

Ladies and gentlemen, we have an opportunity to accept those who are willing, those who are able, those who want to serve their country, yes, in harm's way. Let us take this action. It is the right thing to do and the right time.

In closing, let me say to my friend Mr. McKeon: Mr. McKeon, when I ended my debate, when we passed this in May, you will recall you mentioned General Colin Powell. I did not respond. But as you know, General Colin Powell over these 17 years has changed his perspective. I didn't respond at that time to that fact, but he has done so because he has come to the conclusion that now is the time to act--for our country, for our principles, and for our men and women in the service.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Speaker has decided once more to subvert regular order in the waning moments of this Congress and bring to the floor, without consideration by the House Armed Services Committee, a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, anyone who was listening earlier to the Clerk read the bill that we're discussing, it is titled: To amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. Now, if you're confused, what they have done is taken this bill that has passed, stripped out what is in it, and put in Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

So today, we will debate this standalone measure as a priority when we don't even have a National Defense Authorization Act for 2011. The other body cannot get its work done on that bill because the leadership there placed a higher priority on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to satisfy a Democratic liberal agenda than on passing a bill designed to meet the broad needs and requirements of our national defense, as well as those men and women serving in harm's way. Where are the Democrat priorities? Certainly not with overall national security.

So now we are here to consider the bill by Representative Murphy. It comes to the floor without the committee of jurisdiction being able to formally examine the issues raised by the recent DOD report and without the ability to question witnesses who would have to implement the repeal. Essentially, the high-handed actions of the Speaker forcing this bill to the floor deny the House an ability to assess the conflicting testimony and conclusions that have been rendered by the report.

So I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Murphy's bill. He and the House leadership behind him bring it to the floor in complete disregard for the testimony of three of the four service chiefs and their warning that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness.

Let me repeat that: three of the four service chiefs warn that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness. This is something we all ought to pay serious attention to when we are fighting two wars.

Beyond that, Mr. Murphy brings this bill to the floor in complete disregard for the concerns of those actually in the combat arms. As we now know: ``The percentage of the overall U.S. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their units' ability to `work together to get the job done' is 30 percent; the percentage for the Marine Corps is 43 percent, 48 percent within Army combat units, and 58 percent within Marine combat units.''

If there is any doubt about where the service chiefs stand, here is what they told the other body.

General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff said, ``I think it's important that we're clear about the military risks. Implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a major cultural and policy change in the middle of a war. It would be implemented by a force and leaders that are already stretched by the cumulative effects of almost a decade of war and by a force in which substantial numbers of soldiers perceive that repeal will have a negative impact on unit effectiveness and morale, and that implementation will be difficult.

``I believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will: one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more difficult in our combat arms units; and, three, be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests.

``My recommendation would be that implementation begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat. I would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the Army has on its plate.''

The commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos, said, ``If the law is changed, it has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units for combat.

``Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy to the theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time and, finally, the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time.

``What I would want to have with regards to implementation would be a period of time where our marines are no longer focused primarily on combat. All I am asking is for the opportunity to implement repeal at a time and choosing when my marines are not singularly, tightly focused on what they're doing in a very deadly environment.''

Just yesterday, General Amos made clear just how strongly he feels about the threat that repeal poses to marines

in combat, warning ``that a change in current policy could pose a deadly distraction on the Afghanistan battlefield. I don't want to lose any marines to a distraction,'' Amos said in a roundtable discussion with journalists at the Pentagon.

Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norman Schwartz, said, ``I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. Our officer and NCO leaders in Afghanistan in particular are carrying a heavy load. I remain concerned with the study assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in Afghanistan is low. That assessment is too optimistic. I suggested that perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but I do not think it prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. I think that is too risky.''

These are three of our four Chiefs of Staff.

I strongly believe that we ought to listen closely to the concerns of the service chiefs if for no other reason than they are closer to the sense and pulse of their services than are the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Moreover, I also believe that we should do nothing at this time to threaten the readiness of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are at the tip of the spear, fighting America's two wars. So I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Murphy bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a gentleman who joined the Marine Corps right after 9/11, had two deployments to Iraq, one in Afghanistan in combat situations. We are very proud of this young man.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the time left on both sides.

Maybe we can even the time out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), Republican Conference chair.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana, who just recently retired after 30 years of service as a colonel in the Army, Mr. Buyer. He also serves as ranking member on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard a few times from the other side to do the right thing. I think the right thing will be in the eye of the beholder.

I choose to feel that the right thing for me is to protect those in uniform. I prefer to listen to what those who are leading those men into combat have to say. Just one of the quotes out of the survey said:

In warfighting units, the ones which will be the most effective, 67 percent of marines in combat units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit's effectiveness in completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea.

Now, we may all have different opinions--obviously, from this debate, we do--but these are the ones who are going to be affected. These are the guys who are on the line right now, and they are saying it will have a negative impact--67 percent. I don't think it is worth the risk to put them in any further jeopardy than they are in right now.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, I would implore our Members to reject this Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. Let's go back and look at it a little more thoroughly before we move forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1764, I call up the bill (H.R. 2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and in which to insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Conditions for repeal have been met, due diligence has been done, and the time to act is here. Regardless of what critics say, the issue before us has been debated in Congress and reviewed by the Department of Defense. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House have debated repeal for some time.

My subcommittee held hearings on the issue. The first of those hearings

was on July 23, 2008, actually 15 years after the decision had originally been made, and the second hearing on March 3, 2010. Every Member of this body was welcome to attend, though few Republicans actually made the effort to be there at that time. For those of you who weren't there, the takeaway from these hearings was that the current policy does not work for our Armed Forces and is inconsistent with American values. Next, this House approved language identical to what is before us today as part of a National Defense Authorization Act. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, the DOT completed its study on implementing repeal, confirming our troops are ready for repeal.

Seventy percent of the force said that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will have a positive, a mixed, or no effect on our military. Seventy-four percent of spouses said that open service would not change their support for their spouse staying in the military. And 92 percent of uniformed personnel who believe they have served with a gay servicemember in the past said their unit's ability to work together was ``very good.'' Eighty-nine percent of our warriors on the front line said the same. In short, servicemembers and their spouses have essentially the same view as the American public: Men and women in uniform who are gay should be allowed to serve openly.

And I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that our top civilian and military officials agree with the American people. Secretary of Defense Gates has clearly stated that, with careful preparation, repeal poses a low risk to the readiness and effectiveness of our forces. Admiral Mullen shares that view. In fact, Secretary Gates' biggest concern is if Congress doesn't act to repeal, then he points out the courts will impose this change on the Department of Defense, leaving little or no time to prepare and implement the transition plan properly.

Now, it is true that the military service chiefs have reservations about the timing of repeal, but they all believe that the language has adequate safeguards and, when implemented correctly, repeal can be done and effectively managed. They acknowledge that leadership at all levels will be key. And I have great confidence, Mr. Speaker, in the leaders who are serving in our military and their professionalism. After all, we trust them with decisions about our Nation's safety. We can trust them to put this transition into practice in a way that addresses the needs of our force. But we cannot begin this new challenge until we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Mr. Speaker, change is never easy, but it is rarely as necessary as it is today. In addition to clear statistics in favor of repeal, the survey responses got to what is at the heart of this issue--fairness.

Gay and lesbian personnel have the same values, the same values toward their service as servicemembers at large. What is that? It is love of their country. It is honor. It is respect. It is integrity and service over self. In the words of one gay servicemember, repeal would simply ``take the knife out of my back. You have no idea what it is like to have to serve in silence.''

If we miss this opportunity to repeal this law, history will judge us poorly for the damage we have done to our Nation and our military. I urge Members of this House to be on the right side of history and help end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to remind my colleague that it is not until the Secretary, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the President actually certify that the military is prepared to move forward. There is no defined timeline that this, in fact, would go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), who is the sponsor of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield 1 minute, Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. CHU asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) who happens to be the highest ranking enlisted servicemember serving in Congress.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri), who is a major in the Air Force Reserves.

I yield the gentleman 10 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Tammy Baldwin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, we have the most adaptive, professional force in the world. So let's move forward. No more excuses. It is time to take away the barriers of people who put service above self and who want to serve our country.

I urge an ``aye'' vote as we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Ms. Pingree from Maine, for the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we find ourselves back on the House floor with yet another closed rule. In fact, we haven't seen a single open rule during this entire 111th Congress. I never thought that I would see that, Madam Speaker, an entire Congress pass without a single open rule.

Just 3 hours ago, the Rules Committee was meeting on the underlying legislation before us today. This is the fifth rule since the election that will deny the minority the basic right even to a motion to recommit; in other words, one alternative piece of legislation which, when we were in the majority, we wrote into the rules that the minority would have that right. And since the election last month, this majority has brought five, with this piece of legislation, five bills to the floor with a rule denying even that right to the minority--a motion to recommit.

The underlying legislation repealing the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is important and should be considered carefully and thoroughly by all Members of this House. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, when I spoke on this issue on this House floor in May of this year, I said and I reiterate what I said at that time: Sexual preference should not even be a point of reference when judging individuals.

This is an important issue. Unfortunately, the congressional majority has not even held a hearing in the Armed Services Committee since the Pentagon released their findings of this recent survey. Members of the House on both sides of the aisle support our men and women in uniform. Ensuring the best equipment, improving quality of life for soldiers and their families, and doing everything we can to increase pay are issues of the utmost importance.

For 48 consecutive years, Congress has provided the necessary oversight by passing the Defense authorization bill always in a bipartisan manner. This record of effective congressional review is in jeopardy as we proceed along with what could be the final week of this Congress. I think the majority continues to give insufficient seriousness to even important issues such as this by closing the process.

The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a policy decision to be taken lightly. The Defense Department, at the urging of Congress, spent 10 months collecting and analyzing survey responses from the men and women in our Armed Forces. I believe that analysis, nearly 15,000 pages in length, including the direct comments of our troops, should be the most important factor in considering this legislation, in considering how we vote on this legislation.

The Department of Defense released the results of their survey on November 30, just over 2 weeks ago. Now the majority is asking Congress to move forward in a manner that denies the committees of jurisdiction any review, that denies input from the membership of this House, that takes the product of the Speaker and the author of the legislation and forces the House to vote on it without any ability to offer alternatives, not even a motion to recommit.

I think we do a disservice to this body when we do not debate and deliberate with transparency. That lack of transparency has been standard procedure for the past 4 years. Obviously, we should not expect this congressional majority to change in its final weeks, but that will change in the next Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, with regard to this point of process, which I think is important, I think it is appropriate to point out the facts.

The majority is bringing this legislation to the floor by using another bill as a shell. The other bill is the Small Business Innovation Research Reauthorization bill, which has extraordinary bipartisan support. So the rule before us now strikes that legislation, which is job growth legislation--again, supported overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion in this House. It strikes that, and it inserts into that shell this legislation, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation is not germane to the underlying legislation, so it is anything but regular order.

The House Armed Services Committee has absolutely no jurisdiction over that Small Business bill which the majority is using as a shell to move this legislation out of regular order in order to prohibit transparency, even a motion to recommit. The majority has demonstrated time and time again its willingness to eliminate transparency, to void regular order and to take steps totally out of regular order as it is doing again today.

So I think this is important to put on the record because this legislation, which by the way is important, as I said before, I think deserves to be

treated with respect, consideration, and the membership of this House I think deserves to be listened to, to be heard on legislation, especially legislation which evidently is important, like the one we are discussing today.

I wanted to put that on the record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank my friend from Maine for her courtesy and all who have come to the floor to debate this rule, and I reiterate, I think it's an important piece of legislation. I'm sorry that it was brought forth in an unnecessarily closed manner. I think the legislation deserves more respect, and I think especially the membership of this House deserves more respect.

I have, again, gratitude for all of my colleagues, and I thank them for having participated in this debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.